JAGDISH Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. The respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant for bonafide need of two members of the family.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that the shop in question is 8' x 7'. Both the brothers required accommodation separately. Thus, if the shop is partitioned there will be hardly a room for carrying out a separate business which is rather impracticable. This has not been considered. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant had moved an application under O. 6 R. 17 CPC before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court wrongly rejected it.

(3.) I have considered the contentions. The question as to how the plaintiffs will manage the shop so that both the members of the family may run their business is for the plaintiffs to see and not for the defendant. The finding of bonafide requirement is a finding of fact. No other illegality has been pointed out. I do not find any substantial question involved in the appeal.